Examples.

1. Intermittent Fasting. Eat from 6 PM until 6 PM the next day.
Then fast from 6 PM until 6 PM the next day. Another variation
is to eat a whole day's food in 4 hours or less. (preferably at
least 4 hours before going to sleep.)

2. Contrast showers. Start with hot. End with cold. Alternate
two or more times. If possible, set your water heater so that
scalding water is avoided. In general, 120*F/49*C will be safe
for about 8-10 minutes. You should alternate faster than that,
like every 30 seconds to 3 minutes. If you can't limit the hot
water temperature, be more careful. A hand-held shower is
ideal, so you can quickly turn it away.

3. Interval Training. All-out exercise for 20 sec to 2 min, with
10 sec to 1 min of rest. (2:1 ratio of exercise to rest.) Active
recovery is better than coming to a complete stop. Just slow
down considerably and repeat 8-10 times. This builds athlete
level endurance, power, and respiration.

4. Another experiment to try - periodic sleep deprivations.
Say once a week, every other week, or once a month. Skip
a day of sleep. Primitive people were probably forced to go
without sleep due to various conditions. It would be best to
do this combined with a low-carb diet or fasting, as lack of
sleep lowers your body's insulin sensitivity.

Bruce

"esca_lante" wrote:
> Art de Vany advocates an ocassional ciggar to bolster antioxidant
> reserves. It makes sense to me, so then when exposed to the same
> situation (passive smoke in a social event) the body will tolerate it
> better.

That's probably why raw-foodists often report greater sensitivity
to perfumes and colognes. They seem oblivious to how 100% raw
could cause weakness or sensitivity. If the diet were ideal, there
would be increased tolerance to toxins, not increased sensitivity.
A diet that's too pure might cause auto-immune diseaeses, which
would explain many "detox" symptoms observed.

"That which does not kill us makes us stronger." (Nietzsche)
"Poisoning is a consequence of quantity, not substance.
Toxic simply means too much." (Paracelsus)
"Poisons are stimulants in small doses." (Arndt-Shultz Rule)

> If you are always ¨sterile¨, isolated from every threat, you
> are more weak.

I haven't washed my hands with soap in years. I rinse with water
and often cold water. The only time I use soap is if my hands are
in contact with blood, urine, or feces. Avoiding germs fanatically
is another way people can weaken themselves. See the hygiene
hypothesis of disease - people today are too clean.

You can build up a tolerance to toxins, just like you can build up
a tolerance to fasting, overeating, hot, cold, and exercise. The
claim that cooked food is toxic and that it causes disease is an
ignorant argument from weakness. Being too sterile, too clean,
too pure, too healthy, too perfect causes weakness. I am rarely
sick for more than a few days and it's always mild.

Bruce

> Art de Vany advocates an ocassional ciggar to bolster antioxidant
> reserves. It makes sense to me, so then when exposed to the same
> situation (passive smoke in a social event) the body will tolerate it
> better. If you are always ¨sterile¨, isolated from every threat, you
> are more weak.

Intentionally putting toxins into the body is a reckless and irresponsible
suggestion
on De Vany's part.

Why not periodically spend some time at a nuclear reactor so to build a
resistance to
radiation? (i.e cell phones, T.V., Computers.)

It's an un-natural "solution" to an un-natural situation.

I spend more time than I'd care to in smokey rooms for work purposes. I don't
find
myself weakened at all.

I do agree with the hot/cold theory. I enjoy hot and cold showers often.


FROM BRUCE'S POST:

>That's probably why raw-foodists often report greater sensitivity
>to perfumes and colognes. They seem oblivious to how 100% raw
>could cause weakness or sensitivity. If the diet were ideal, there
>would be increased tolerance to toxins, not increased sensitivity.
>A diet that's too pure might cause auto-immune diseaeses, which
>would explain many "detox" symptoms observed

If indeed that were true, it's still not a reason to not eat all raw. If having
a 'cleaner'
body means not feeling completely healthy in an unhealthy environment than, so
be it
(IMO).

The fact that a large majority of other people choose to live toxically (sp?) is
not a
license for acceptance, IMO.

Why not just take up fast food and smoking?

MJG

That's strange..I have done everything out of that list instinctivly
without realizing it's benefits..weird.

Have you heard of the Warrior diet? This sounds similar to it..




--- In AV-Skeptics@yahoogroups.com, <rensielk@...> wrote:
>
> Examples.
>
> 1. Intermittent Fasting. Eat from 6 PM until 6 PM the next day.
> Then fast from 6 PM until 6 PM the next day. Another variation
> is to eat a whole day's food in 4 hours or less. (preferably at
> least 4 hours before going to sleep.)
>
> 2. Contrast showers. Start with hot. End with cold. Alternate
> two or more times. If possible, set your water heater so that
> scalding water is avoided. In general, 120*F/49*C will be safe
> for about 8-10 minutes. You should alternate faster than that,
> like every 30 seconds to 3 minutes. If you can't limit the hot
> water temperature, be more careful. A hand-held shower is
> ideal, so you can quickly turn it away.
>
> 3. Interval Training. All-out exercise for 20 sec to 2 min, with
> 10 sec to 1 min of rest. (2:1 ratio of exercise to rest.) Active
> recovery is better than coming to a complete stop. Just slow
> down considerably and repeat 8-10 times. This builds athlete
> level endurance, power, and respiration.
>
> 4. Another experiment to try - periodic sleep deprivations.
> Say once a week, every other week, or once a month. Skip
> a day of sleep. Primitive people were probably forced to go
> without sleep due to various conditions. It would be best to
> do this combined with a low-carb diet or fasting, as lack of
> sleep lowers your body's insulin sensitivity.
>
> Bruce
>

Bruce wrote:

> 4. Another experiment to try - periodic sleep deprivations.

I was going to suggest that too. Sleeping well most of the time and
throwing days of little or no sleep at all. The facts show that brief
stress provoked by different factors - toxins, adverse weather, etc. -
share similar adaptive responses such as increased antioxidant
defenses, improved immune cell function and DNA repair, by triggering
probably common bioechemical pathways associated with survival and
longevity.

J. M.

"Mloclam D. Log" <josh1270@...> wrote:

> Why not periodically spend some time at a nuclear reactor so to
> build a resistance to radiation? (i.e cell phones, T.V.,
> Computers.)

Actually there´s plenty of evidence suggesting that low levels of
radiation improve health. See ¨radiation hormesis¨.

http://www.angelfire.com/mo/radioadaptive/inthorm.html

http://www.giriweb.com/luckey.htm#lsept

http://209.85.165.104/search?
q=cache:IbTJ8IISICMJ:www.atomicinsights.com/Guests/Cuttler%2520-%
2520Risk%2520vs%
2520hormesis.pdf+hormesis+nuclear+radiation&hl=es&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ar

http://209.85.165.104/search?
q=cache:QtZqv9mqzlsJ:www.jpands.org/vol9no1/chen.pdf+hormesis+nuclear
+radiation&hl=es&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=ar

http://www.angelfire.com/mo/radioadaptive/cuttler.html


http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/nuclear.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050128222047.htm


> It's an un-natural "solution" to an un-natural situation.

Maybe that could be true, maybe not always. Some types of radiation
and other stressors are natural and DO occur in nature.

> I spend more time than I'd care to in smokey rooms for work
> purposes. I don't find myself weakened at all.

Perhaps because you have built up a tolerance.

> If indeed that were true, it's still not a reason to not eat all
> raw. If having a 'cleaner' body means not feeling completely
> healthy in an unhealthy environment than, so be it (IMO).

Always mantaining a cleaner body is not necessarily equal to a
healthier body. By avoiding ocassional cooked meats - the ones we
have been eating at least 350,000 years - maybe you are losing the
chance to activate genes associated to self-repair and longevity.

HCAs from cooked meat for instance are not toxic nor carcinogenic.

http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/81/2/273

¨Human cancer risk assessment is presently estimated based on
extrapolation to low doses of results from animals receiving much
higher doses than with normal human exposure.¨

¨In conclusion, low doses of the genotoxic carcinogen, MeIQx may
show a practical threshold, below which there are no effects, not
only for carcinogenic potential but also for in vivo mutagenesis.
The assumption that the carcinogenic response curve linearly
approaches zero at very low doses is not reasonable for assessing
human risk.¨

This is in line with the hormetic non-linear response. Of course
that raw-foodists ignore this studies and cite the ones in which
animals were given HCAs in much higher doses than the ones that can
be achieved by eating cooked food.

> The fact that a large majority of other people choose to live
> toxically (sp?) is not a license for acceptance, IMO.

Of course not, but that doesn´t mean that EVERYTHING different from
100 % raw is toxic. The facts don´t support that.

> Why not just take up fast food and smoking?

Why going always to the extremes, losing a mark of reference and
balance? Nobody here suggested that.

J. M.

¨The possible existence of a dose threshold for chemical
carcinogenicity is of great importance in the regulatory science
field. It has been generally considered that genotoxic carcinogens
have no threshold in exerting carcinogenic potential (Preussmann,
1980; Tomatis et al., 1997), because classically carcinogens are
mutagenic, interacting with DNA to produce irreversible genetic
changes in target organ cells. This is based on acceptance of a
linear curve down to zero at low doses for risk assessment of
exposure to humans with chemicals found to be carcinogenic in animal
studies. While there are only limited data available for estimation
of cancer risk assessment in humans exposed to genotoxic carcinogens
(Gaylor, 1979; Littlefield et al., 1979; Peto et al., 1991), it has
been argued that the nonthreshold theory can be challenged. This is
because life forms possess biological responses that can ameliorate
genotoxic activity.¨

http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/80/1/109

Too much for the claim that cooked meat automatically increases
colon cancer risk. That´s why association doesn´t mean causation.
Quoting a few epidemiological studies while ignoring other data also
from ecological observations, and citing irrelevant and misleading
animal studies - also in a selective way -, proves nothing.


¨The findings suggest that the hormetic responses are more
fundamental than threshold responses and support recent arguments
that the hormesis model should be considered as the default dose-
response model for scientific interpretation of toxicological
responses.¨

http://www.hormesissociety.org/pdf/ToxSciHormesisYeast.pdf

J. M.

--- In AV-Skeptics@yahoogroups.com, <rensielk@...> wrote:
>In fact, Edward Howell noted that Eskimo sled dogs
> degenerated on a diet of fresh raw meat. They thrived on cooked
> meat or aged meat.

Where did you read this?

> Studies
> have shown that raw eggs are 51.3 ± 9.8% digestible and cooked
> eggs are 90.9 ± 0.8% digestible. So, cooked eggs are more easily
> digested and have less variation in digestibility.
> Raw = 41.5-61.1% digestible. Cooked = 90.1-91.7% digestible.
>
> http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/128/10/1716

I haven't read that entire article. Are they talking about the entire
egg, or just the white? I cook my whites, and pour the raw yolks over
them, because i heard the inhibitors are only in the white......

"Mloclam D. Log" wrote:
> Intentionally putting toxins into the body is a reckless and irresponsible
> suggestion on De Vany's part.

Who has shown that cigars or natural cigarettes are dangerous toxins?
Primitive groups and other cultures smoke with much lower rates of
cancer. See Japan and Greece. Half the men in Japan smoke. Do the
Japanese have more cancer or less? What is different between Japan
and the West? Are they more healthy or less?

There are plenty of toxins in raw foods, as I've pointed before. Raw
eggs contain enzyme inhibitors, and block biotin and iron utilization.
Green vegetables contain many antinutrients or toxins, which juicing
concentrates and incresases the absorption of.

"Avoiding toxins" does not solve the nutritional cost/benefit trade-off.
http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1g.shtml
http://www.youngerthanyourage.com/13/plants.htm

> Why not periodically spend some time at a nuclear reactor so to build
> a resistance to radiation? (i.e cell phones, T.V., Computers.)

We are talking about low doses, not handling radioactive material.
Many have argued that electro-magnetic radiation is harmful. Just
switch off your main circuit breaker and see if you feel different.
I've noticed many times during black-outs that I feel different. EM
radiation clearly has effects on the brain, at least.

> It's an un-natural "solution" to an un-natural situation.

Just like the primal diet, eh? What is natural about eating pounds
of meat, dozens of eggs, sticks of butter, green juice, and honey?
Go out in nature and try to eat the primal diet or any largely raw
diet. Good luck milking a wild animal or getting honey from wild
bees, or eating wild meat connective tissue.

> If indeed that were true, it's still not a reason to not eat all raw.

You haven't given any irrefutable reasons FOR eating all raw. In
fact, you haven't even addressed the basic arguments BeyondVeg
has made, such as natural toxins in raw foods (including raw eggs,
dairy, meat, fish, vegetable juice, and fruits.).

> If having a 'cleaner' body means not feeling completely healthy
> in an unhealthy environment than, so be it (IMO).

Who determines that your body is cleaner? I would rather feel
"completely healthy" in an unhealthy environment than have a
more detoxed body according to a raw diet guru.

> The fact that a large majority of other people choose to live
> toxically (sp?) is not a license for acceptance, IMO.

The large majority of people do not use hot/cold showers,
intermittent fasting, short bouts of intense exercise, or low
dose exposure to toxins. Most abuse alcohol, or tobacco, or
junk food, or fast food, or drugs, for example.

> Why not just take up fast food and smoking?

That isn't what was being discussed and it's a straw man.
I'd be wary of any diet where the gurus warns followers
not to wear perfumes and colognes to their potlucks. As
AV says, some people are "very scent-sitive." You might
investigate why this is true. There's a theory called the
hygiene hypothesis. When you aren't exposed to things
like dust, pollen, pet hair, pet dander, germs, dirt, and
so forth, you are more likely to auto-immune problems,
allergies, food intolerances, and MCS. A "cleaner" body
is a weaker and more vulnerable body.

Bruce

"Primitive groups and other cultures smoke with much lower rates of
> cancer. See Japan and Greece. Half the men in Japan smoke. Do the
> Japanese have more cancer or less? What is different between Japan
> and the West? Are they more healthy or less?"

Now you're being absolutely rediculous.  I'll admit that I haven't
been sure whether eating 100% raw is really the healthiest way, nor am
I sure that we should consume large amounts of dairy as recommended by
Aajonus.  But it's completely asenine to think that breathing in
smoke, probably of any kind, could be beneficial to the body.
I know a woman who smokes "organic cigarettes" and I thought it was
hilarious that there's a such thing.  Her voice is just as raspy, skin
just as leathery and wrinkly, and she's aged at least as fast as
people who I see smoking any other kind of cigarettes.
The Japanese also get a lot less processed junk food and more sea food
than Americans.  I'm sure the ones who are smoking aren't the ones
helping the overall population have a lower cancer rate.  My younger
brother was just in Japan for a year as a foreign exchange student.
The Japanese smokers get the same problems as American smokers.  They
are a smarter race of people and they are ahead of us by years in all
technology, but that doesn't give them a special protection against
such a toxic habit, at least not yet.  Who's healthier?  The Japanese
have longer lifespans and are mostly healthier, but they do have many
health problems and higher rates of certain kinds of cancer such as
stomach cancers, which my brother's host father had when he stayed
over there.  They also have a high rate of crooked teeth and small jaw
structures, which is all diet related.  Their cancer rates and
diseases have increased exponentially since America started setting up
fast food places there, exporting cigarettes, and sending other junk
foods.

"Who has shown that cigars or natural cigarettes are dangerous toxins?"

Who has shown that they are safe toxins?

"Go out in nature and try to eat the primal diet or any largely raw
> diet."
I couldn't eat the Primal Diet in nature, but why couldn't I eat a raw
diet?  You could certainly eat the meat and organs and bone marrow of
the animals you've hunted.  There must have been some point at the
beginning of the human race where they didn't know how to make fire
and ate their food raw.  I'm pretty sure the Eskimos are a recent
example of having eaten most of, if not all, their meat raw up until
somewhat recently.  The reason that the eskimo didn't get scurvy when
all the westerners were was because of the fact that they ate raw
meats.  Cooking destroys the vitamin c.

I always take cold showers, especially during spring and summer,
because they make me feel better afterwards and I think they improve
health.  I do intense exercise as well.  But smoking?  Come on.....
What proof do you have that made you confident enough to endorse smoking?

-Jon


--- In AV-Skeptics@yahoogroups.com, <rensielk@...> wrote:
>
> "Mloclam D. Log" wrote:
> > Intentionally putting toxins into the body is a reckless and
irresponsible
> > suggestion on De Vany's part.
>
> Who has shown that cigars or natural cigarettes are dangerous toxins?
> Primitive groups and other cultures smoke with much lower rates of
> cancer. See Japan and Greece. Half the men in Japan smoke. Do the
> Japanese have more cancer or less? What is different between Japan
> and the West? Are they more healthy or less?
>
> There are plenty of toxins in raw foods, as I've pointed before. Raw
> eggs contain enzyme inhibitors, and block biotin and iron utilization.
> Green vegetables contain many antinutrients or toxins, which juicing
> concentrates and incresases the absorption of.
>
> "Avoiding toxins" does not solve the nutritional cost/benefit trade-off.
> http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1g.shtml
> http://www.youngerthanyourage.com/13/plants.htm
>
> > Why not periodically spend some time at a nuclear reactor so to build
> > a resistance to radiation? (i.e cell phones, T.V., Computers.)
>
> We are talking about low doses, not handling radioactive material.
> Many have argued that electro-magnetic radiation is harmful. Just
> switch off your main circuit breaker and see if you feel different.
> I've noticed many times during black-outs that I feel different. EM
> radiation clearly has effects on the brain, at least.
>
> > It's an un-natural "solution" to an un-natural situation.
>
> Just like the primal diet, eh? What is natural about eating pounds
> of meat, dozens of eggs, sticks of butter, green juice, and honey?
> Go out in nature and try to eat the primal diet or any largely raw
> diet. Good luck milking a wild animal or getting honey from wild
> bees, or eating wild meat connective tissue.
>
> > If indeed that were true, it's still not a reason to not eat all raw.
>
> You haven't given any irrefutable reasons FOR eating all raw. In
> fact, you haven't even addressed the basic arguments BeyondVeg
> has made, such as natural toxins in raw foods (including raw eggs,
> dairy, meat, fish, vegetable juice, and fruits.).
>
> > If having a 'cleaner' body means not feeling completely healthy
> > in an unhealthy environment than, so be it (IMO).
>
> Who determines that your body is cleaner? I would rather feel
> "completely healthy" in an unhealthy environment than have a
> more detoxed body according to a raw diet guru.
>
> > The fact that a large majority of other people choose to live
> > toxically (sp?) is not a license for acceptance, IMO.
>
> The large majority of people do not use hot/cold showers,
> intermittent fasting, short bouts of intense exercise, or low
> dose exposure to toxins. Most abuse alcohol, or tobacco, or
> junk food, or fast food, or drugs, for example.
>
> > Why not just take up fast food and smoking?
>
> That isn't what was being discussed and it's a straw man.
> I'd be wary of any diet where the gurus warns followers
> not to wear perfumes and colognes to their potlucks. As
> AV says, some people are "very scent-sitive." You might
> investigate why this is true. There's a theory called the
> hygiene hypothesis. When you aren't exposed to things
> like dust, pollen, pet hair, pet dander, germs, dirt, and
> so forth, you are more likely to auto-immune problems,
> allergies, food intolerances, and MCS. A "cleaner" body
> is a weaker and more vulnerable body.
>
> Bruce
>

> Who has shown that cigars or natural cigarettes are dangerous toxins?
> Primitive groups and other cultures smoke with much lower rates of
> cancer. See Japan and Greece. Half the men in Japan smoke. Do the
> Japanese have more cancer or less? What is different between Japan
> and the West? Are they more healthy or less?
>

Wow, I've seen some fairly irrational statements by you on here, Bruce. But this
is the
'topper', as they say. (Or are you planning on posting about the lack of proof
regarding the dangers of Heroin next?)

If I was to have just happened upon this site and read your statement cold, I
certainly
would think twice about taking anything you said seriously.

Even so, it didn't take me very long anyway...

I'd like to respond to some of your other opinions below, but, frankly, I have
no
interest anymore.

MJG









> There are plenty of toxins in raw foods, as I've pointed before. Raw
> eggs contain enzyme inhibitors, and block biotin and iron utilization.
> Green vegetables contain many antinutrients or toxins, which juicing
> concentrates and incresases the absorption of.
>
> "Avoiding toxins" does not solve the nutritional cost/benefit trade-off.
> http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1g.shtml
> http://www.youngerthanyourage.com/13/plants.htm
>
> > Why not periodically spend some time at a nuclear reactor so to build
> > a resistance to radiation? (i.e cell phones, T.V., Computers.)
>
> We are talking about low doses, not handling radioactive material.
> Many have argued that electro-magnetic radiation is harmful. Just
> switch off your main circuit breaker and see if you feel different.
> I've noticed many times during black-outs that I feel different. EM
> radiation clearly has effects on the brain, at least.
>
> > It's an un-natural "solution" to an un-natural situation.
>
> Just like the primal diet, eh? What is natural about eating pounds
> of meat, dozens of eggs, sticks of butter, green juice, and honey?
> Go out in nature and try to eat the primal diet or any largely raw
> diet. Good luck milking a wild animal or getting honey from wild
> bees, or eating wild meat connective tissue.
>
> > If indeed that were true, it's still not a reason to not eat all raw.
>
> You haven't given any irrefutable reasons FOR eating all raw. In
> fact, you haven't even addressed the basic arguments BeyondVeg
> has made, such as natural toxins in raw foods (including raw eggs,
> dairy, meat, fish, vegetable juice, and fruits.).
>
> > If having a 'cleaner' body means not feeling completely healthy
> > in an unhealthy environment than, so be it (IMO).
>
> Who determines that your body is cleaner? I would rather feel
> "completely healthy" in an unhealthy environment than have a
> more detoxed body according to a raw diet guru.
>
> > The fact that a large majority of other people choose to live
> > toxically (sp?) is not a license for acceptance, IMO.
>
> The large majority of people do not use hot/cold showers,
> intermittent fasting, short bouts of intense exercise, or low
> dose exposure to toxins. Most abuse alcohol, or tobacco, or
> junk food, or fast food, or drugs, for example.
>
> > Why not just take up fast food and smoking?
>
> That isn't what was being discussed and it's a straw man.
> I'd be wary of any diet where the gurus warns followers
> not to wear perfumes and colognes to their potlucks. As
> AV says, some people are "very scent-sitive." You might
> investigate why this is true. There's a theory called the
> hygiene hypothesis. When you aren't exposed to things
> like dust, pollen, pet hair, pet dander, germs, dirt, and
> so forth, you are more likely to auto-immune problems,
> allergies, food intolerances, and MCS. A "cleaner" body
> is a weaker and more vulnerable body.
>
> Bruce
>

"Mloclam D. Log" wrote:

> Wow, I've seen some fairly irrational statements by you on here,
> Bruce.

Could you elaborate on this? It´s easy to talk without proof, as most
people do.

The only irrational statements I have seen so far are the ones coming
from your posts. Saying that your body has to kill itself because it
has beeen poisoned by cooked food it´s a science fiction scenario.
Only aliens from the space do that, not human beings. Show proof of
regeneration by eating 100% raw. You want to belive what AV has to
say because you are part of the cult.

> But this is the 'topper', as they say. (Or are you planning on
> posting about the lack of proof regarding the dangers of Heroin
> next?)

Don´t you see that health is a very complex issue affected by MANY
factors? Blaming cigars while ignoring all the other things is too
simplistic. And who is advocating smoking? Brief, not chronic stress.

> If I was to have just happened upon this site and read your
> statement cold, I certainly would think twice about taking anything
> you said seriously.

That´s good. I have read all the old posts before posting my first
message here. That´s why you should read things by yourself and in
context. And you can try things mentioned here by yourself or not.
YOU can find out if they work for you or not. Bruce is not a guru and
he is not selling a diet for everyone to be cured of every disease.
He is just sharing lots of knowledge and info. based on his
experience and readings. You have provided nothing interesting IMO.

For instance, If I were to read just an absurd statement from AV´s
book, I will throw it to the garbage and never take anthing written
in there seriously.

> I'd like to respond to some of your other opinions below, but,
> frankly, I have no interest anymore.

Maybe because you don´t want to get out from your fantasy world
painted by AV´s brush. The facts don´t support your view.

J. M.

> The only irrational statements I have seen so far are the ones coming
> from your posts. Saying that your body has to kill itself because it
> has beeen poisoned by cooked food it´s a science fiction scenario.
> Only aliens from the space do that, not human beings. Show proof of
> regeneration by eating 100% raw. You want to belive what AV has to
> say because you are part of the cult.

I've never mentioned toxins in cooked foods in connection with Detox. You're
completely miss-quoting me and, once again, either not understanding my thoughts
or choosing to ignore them.

So really there is no point in furthering this discussion.

From the start, you have pegged me as a spokesman/cheerleader for Aajonus and
the
PD, which is not the case. As I've said many times my goal in posting here was
to
provide my testimonial on the healing that RAF/the PD has helped me (and many
others)to achieve.



>
> > But this is the 'topper', as they say. (Or are you planning on
> > posting about the lack of proof regarding the dangers of Heroin
> > next?)
>
> Don´t you see that health is a very complex issue affected by MANY
> factors? Blaming cigars while ignoring all the other things is too
> simplistic. And who is advocating smoking? Brief, not chronic stress.

I am not blaming cigars. Once again you are forwarding accusations that are
untrue
and thus, irrelevant (as usual).

There is NO WAY you will convince me (and many others, I'm sure) that breathing
in
smoke of any kind or any amount is beneficial for the human body in any way.


> For instance, If I were to read just an absurd statement from AV´s
> book, I will throw it to the garbage and never take anthing written
> in there seriously.
>

That's fine,be my guest. But with all due respect, I have tired long ago of your
inaccurate scenarios. I'm talking about Bruce's statement regarding the
"benefit" of
smoking a cigar now and then. Nothing else.

Please stop using every post I make as an excuse to discredit AV. It benefits no
one
and nothing.


> Maybe because you don´t want to get out from your fantasy world
> painted by AV´s brush. The facts don´t support your view.
>
> J. M.
>

Ditto.

MJG

"Mloclam D. Log" wrote:

> I've never mentioned toxins in cooked foods in connection with
> Detox.

Even I never said that you have said that, actually that´s what you
wrote in one of your old posts.

You have a very bad memory or you are lying. Here´s the irrational
statement you wrote in one of your old posts:

¨ Over time, toxics become part of a toxic body. They become embedded
in tissue causing blockages, tumors etc. They become PART of the
body. Thus, removing those toxins cannot be pleasant. The body must
temporarily "kill" off the parts of itself that are toxic and then
rebuild healthfully. There is no way this can be a pleasant
experience, but it is a necessary one for anyone with optimal health
in mind.¨

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/AV-Skeptics/message/2785

So Josh, who is distorting the truth now, eh?

> You're completely miss-quoting me and, once again, either not
> understanding my thoughts or choosing to ignore them.

Clearly I am not. The facts show that. And as usual you always
¨forget¨ to address my questions in my past post.

J.M.

--- In AV-Skeptics@yahoogroups.com, "esca_lante" <esca_lante@...> wrote:
>
> "Mloclam D. Log" wrote:
>
> > I've never mentioned toxins in cooked foods in connection with
> > Detox.
>


Escalante wrote:

> Even I never said that you have said that, actually that´s what you
> wrote in one of your old posts.
>
> You have a very bad memory or you are lying. Here´s the irrational
> statement you wrote in one of your old posts:
>
> ¨ Over time, toxics become part of a toxic body. They become embedded
> in tissue causing blockages, tumors etc. They become PART of the
> body. Thus, removing those toxins cannot be pleasant. The body must
> temporarily "kill" off the parts of itself that are toxic and then
> rebuild healthfully. There is no way this can be a pleasant
> experience, but it is a necessary one for anyone with optimal health
> in mind.¨
>
> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/AV-Skeptics/message/2785
>
> So Josh, who is distorting the truth now, eh?
>




Yes, I did say that. But does it say anything about toxins being a result of
eating
cooked food? No, it does not.

Who is the liar here, J.M.? You have no right to call me a liar. It is un-called
for and
beneath you, my friend.

With all due respect, either you can't speak English well enough to be having
this
discussion in the first place, or you are the liar.

Again, this is a clear example of you calling your opinions FACTS. You've been
doing
this through this whole discussion and it makes it impossible to have an
intelligent
discussion on this site.

It's non-sense and I will no longer be a part of it, nor respond to any of your
further
posts.

You do have some interesting things to say, JM. But over all, you are a
discredit to the
sharing of TRUTHFUL information, sir.




Mloclamdlog wrote:


> > You're completely miss-quoting me and, once again, either not
> > understanding my thoughts or choosing to ignore them.
>

Escalante wrote:
> Clearly I am not. The facts show that. And as usual you always
> ¨forget¨ to address my questions in my past post.
>
> J.M.
>


Wrong. Again, your "facts" show nothing but your opinion.

I'll say it again:
Again, this is a clear example of you calling your opinions FACTS. You've been
doing
this through this whole discussion and it makes it impossible to have an
intelligent
discussion on this site.

MJG

> "Mloclam D. Log" <josh1270@...>
> > Bruce

> > Who has shown that cigars or natural cigarettes are dangerous toxins?
> > Primitive groups and other cultures smoke with much lower rates of
> > cancer. See Japan and Greece. Half the men in Japan smoke. Do the
> > Japanese have more cancer or less? What is different between Japan
> > and the West? Are they more healthy or less?
>
> Wow, I've seen some fairly irrational statements by you on here, Bruce. But
this is the
> 'topper', as they say. (Or are you planning on posting about the lack of proof
> regarding the dangers of Heroin next?)

It's not irrational at all and you haven't answered any of my questions.
Clearly there are reasons why people in other cultures smoke heavily
and have low rates of disease. Maybe their culture protects them in
other ways. Maybe they're smoking more natural tobacco, instead of
Marlboros with 100,000 chemical additives. Heroin is less addictive
than nicotine, based on what I've read. Back in the early 1900s, you
could buy morphine as easily as you buy aspirin today. Drugs should
be legalized as a civil rights issue and a solution to crime.

http://leap.cc/

> If I was to have just happened upon this site and read your statement cold,
> I certainly would think twice about taking anything you said seriously.

It's a pity you don't apply the same standard to Aajonus's books and
interviews. If I read someone claiming to have "reversed" a dozen
chronic diseases, without proof that he was sick or cured, I would
tend to doubt anything he said. If I read someone claiming to have
tested 1,200 supplements in 2 years and decided they were "toxic"
based on iridology, I would tend to dismiss anything he said. But I
have not said anything that can't be supported. And, as usual, you
have failed to address the points I brought up.

> Even so, it didn't take me very long anyway...

It didn't take you very long, because you're lazy. You don't bother
to think about what you read, or investigate it. You just jump to
silly conclusions, based on superficial reading.

> I'd like to respond to some of your other opinions below, but, frankly,
> I have no interest anymore.

We have no time for you wasting our time with what you don't
have time to study or investigate. You're a deluded follower of
Aajonus and can't see beyond your blinders. You would be doing
us a favor not to bother posting unless you care to respond one
point at a time to to the issues raised. You make yourself look
silly, lazy, and brainwashed. You add nothing. Why not go back
to the Aajonus bandwagon sites, like primaldiet and live-food,
where you can wallow in ignorance with like-minds? We're in
the habit of thinking for ourselves and being skeptical of nutty
claims and statements by money-hungry gurus.

Bruce


> There are plenty of toxins in raw foods, as I've pointed before. Raw
> eggs contain enzyme inhibitors, and block biotin and iron utilization.
> Green vegetables contain many antinutrients or toxins, which juicing
> concentrates and incresases the absorption of.
>
> "Avoiding toxins" does not solve the nutritional cost/benefit trade-off.
> http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1g.shtml
> http://www.youngerthanyourage.com/13/plants.htm
>
> > Why not periodically spend some time at a nuclear reactor so to build
> > a resistance to radiation? (i.e cell phones, T.V., Computers.)
>
> We are talking about low doses, not handling radioactive material.
> Many have argued that electro-magnetic radiation is harmful. Just
> switch off your main circuit breaker and see if you feel different.
> I've noticed many times during black-outs that I feel different. EM
> radiation clearly has effects on the brain, at least.
>
> > It's an un-natural "solution" to an un-natural situation.
>
> Just like the primal diet, eh? What is natural about eating pounds
> of meat, dozens of eggs, sticks of butter, green juice, and honey?
> Go out in nature and try to eat the primal diet or any largely raw
> diet. Good luck milking a wild animal or getting honey from wild
> bees, or eating wild meat connective tissue.
>
> > If indeed that were true, it's still not a reason to not eat all raw.
>
> You haven't given any irrefutable reasons FOR eating all raw. In
> fact, you haven't even addressed the basic arguments BeyondVeg
> has made, such as natural toxins in raw foods (including raw eggs,
> dairy, meat, fish, vegetable juice, and fruits.).
>
> > If having a 'cleaner' body means not feeling completely healthy
> > in an unhealthy environment than, so be it (IMO).
>
> Who determines that your body is cleaner? I would rather feel
> "completely healthy" in an unhealthy environment than have a
> more detoxed body according to a raw diet guru.
>
> > The fact that a large majority of other people choose to live
> > toxically (sp?) is not a license for acceptance, IMO.
>
> The large majority of people do not use hot/cold showers,
> intermittent fasting, short bouts of intense exercise, or low
> dose exposure to toxins. Most abuse alcohol, or tobacco, or
> junk food, or fast food, or drugs, for example.
>
> > Why not just take up fast food and smoking?
>
> That isn't what was being discussed and it's a straw man.
> I'd be wary of any diet where the gurus warns followers
> not to wear perfumes and colognes to their potlucks. As
> AV says, some people are "very scent-sitive." You might
> investigate why this is true. There's a theory called the
> hygiene hypothesis. When you aren't exposed to things
> like dust, pollen, pet hair, pet dander, germs, dirt, and
> so forth, you are more likely to auto-immune problems,
> allergies, food intolerances, and MCS. A "cleaner" body
> is a weaker and more vulnerable body.
>
> Bruce
>

"Mloclam D. Log" wrote:
> Again, this is a clear example of you calling your opinions FACTS. You've been
doing
> this through this whole discussion and it makes it impossible to have an
intelligent
> discussion on this site.

You've never tried to have an intelligent discussion on this site, Josh/Malcolm.
You've just made ignorant and dismissive statements without really taking the
time to bother comprehending what was being said.

> It's non-sense and I will no longer be a part of it, nor respond to any of
your
> further posts.

You make no constructive contributions to this forum anyway, Josh/Malcolm.
One wonders why you continue to remain here, unless you are paid by AV to
bother us. What do you get out of this group? You refuse to open your mind,
or learn anything from anyone, you have all the answers from Aajonus. Don't
you agree with 95% of what he says? Including the claim to have tried 1,200
supplements in 2 years, and concluded they were toxic? Including the claims
to have broken seven bones (without proof) and healed 3 times faster than
someone eating cooked food (again without proof)? YOU disgrace yourself,
over and over again, every time you try to distract us from the idiotic and
nonsensical statements which AV has repeatedly made.

http://www.angelfire.com/ny2/bass/aajonus.html

> You do have some interesting things to say, JM. But over all, you are a
> discredit to the sharing of TRUTHFUL information, sir.

Well, we can't all be as credible and truthful as Aajonus - the man with a
dozen chronic diseases all cured by eating raw food; the man who tested
1,200 supplements in two years and concluded they were toxic based on
iridology; the man who says ascorbic acid damages the brain, and causes
behavioral problems; the man whose bones heal 3 times faster than the
cooked food eaters; the man who can do 300 push-ups on his head (just
like Herbert Shelton, I believe). You know what, Malcolm/Josh? We are
glad to be criticized by you. It's a complement.

> Again, this is a clear example of you calling your opinions FACTS. You've been
doing
> this through this whole discussion and it makes it impossible to have an
intelligent
> discussion on this site.

It's impossible to have an intelligent discussion with you, because you
are either not intelligent or simply brainwashed. We ask you questions
and you just ignore them - while making dismissive statements about
something we said. Either answer this now or you are gone. Where is
the proof that supplements are toxic? Where is the proof that cooked
food is toxic or deficient? Where is the proof that raw is regenerates
toxic or damaged organs? Where is the proof that raw provides great
fitness even without exercise? Where is the proof that raw food will
extend the maximum + average human life span? Where is the proof
that raw food protects against toxins or increases detox and cooked
food doesn't? We know from animal studies that intermittent fasting
extends, improves health, and protects against toxins. Let us see the
proof that RAF diets offer similar advantages.

Bruce

>
> It's not irrational at all and you haven't answered any of my questions.
> Clearly there are reasons why people in other cultures smoke heavily
> and have low rates of disease. Maybe their culture protects them in
> other ways. Maybe they're smoking more natural tobacco, instead of
> Marlboros with 100,000 chemical additives. Heroin is less addictive
> than nicotine, based on what I've read. Back in the early 1900s, you
> could buy morphine as easily as you buy aspirin today. Drugs should
> be legalized as a civil rights issue and a solution to crime.

All due respect, Bruce, the question's not worth answering.

The 'fact' that there may be some groups of people who smoke but have less
occurance of disease means nothing. If you can show me a culture that smoke and
has a history of absolutely NO disease, I'd be interested in learning more.

I'm with you on the legalizing point, however.




> It's a pity you don't apply the same standard to Aajonus's books and
> interviews. If I read someone claiming to have "reversed" a dozen
> chronic diseases, without proof that he was sick or cured, I would
> tend to doubt anything he said.

I would, too. And I did at first, actually. The 'problem' with your point is
that I have
experience the claims to be true. First hand. That's been the only point that
I've tried
to convey here. This page is a bias slant that tries to discredit truth for the
sake of
some undefined grudge that is being held.

You've passed that over every time I've mentioned it. You have allowed your
dislike of
Aajonus and the PD to discredit actually first hand testimonial (not just mine,
either).

Where is the educational value in that? Isn't that the point of our spending
time
sharing information here?

That's my only point.

I'm more than happy to not post here. Just stop posting things that aren't true
and I
won't have to post anymore.

I can just read and learn....


Josh/Malcolm

"Mloclam D. Log" wrote:
> I've never mentioned toxins in cooked foods in connection with Detox.

It's a given from the arguments you are using that the toxic load comes
from pollution and/or cooked food. That is basic raw doctrine. Trying
to say that you have never mentioned a connection betwen cooked
food and detox is irrelevant. The word "detox" carries that baggage,
based on the context you are using it in.

> So really there is no point in furthering this discussion.

Denying that you said something doesn't refute the connection with
what you did say, that the body has to be torn down and rebuilt by
eating raw food. You have never denied that toxins in cooked food
are connected with detox and still haven't.

> From the start, you have pegged me as a spokesman/cheerleader for Aajonus and
the
> PD, which is not the case. As I've said many times my goal in posting here was
to
> provide my testimonial on the healing that RAF/the PD has helped me (and many
> others)to achieve.

We're not really interested in hearing testimonials. We can get that
anywhere. We're interested in hearing a plausible mechanism which
would prove raw food offers unique advantages. Your claims are al
unscientific and prove nothing. We want you to address the claims
for regeneration, bones healing 3 times faster, etc. Just explain the
mechanism of detox caused by eating raw food.

> There is NO WAY you will convince me (and many others, I'm sure) that
breathing in
> smoke of any kind or any amount is beneficial for the human body in any way.

We never said that it was beneficial. Jose was quoting Art DeVany,
who argued that an occasional cigar is beneficial.

> with all due respect, I have tired long ago of your
> inaccurate scenarios. I'm talking about Bruce's statement regarding the
"benefit" of
> smoking a cigar now and then. Nothing else.

With all due respect, I am tired of your inaccurate statements and
scenarios. I never said that smoking a cigar now and then was good
or bad. Jose brought it up, quoting Art DeVany. I will put DeVany's
health against Aajonus's any day of the week. At least he can back
up what he says. AV makes it up as he goes along.

> Please stop using every post I make as an excuse to discredit AV. It
> benefits no one and nothing.

Please stop using every post to defend AV. It benefits no one and
nothing. If you are going to defend the primal diet and claim its
results are valid, you are obliged to answer questions or else you
are just a blind follower wasting our time.

The facts don't support your views. We're still waiting for you to
respond about AV's testing 1,200 supplements in 2 years, the study
I cited on raw and cooked egg digestibility, AV's bones healing 3x
faster than normal peole, raw food allowing regeneration, detox,
superior fitness, and other absurd claims. It will be easy for you
to refute these issues, if the facts are on your side. But they are
not. So instead you keep trying to distract us.

Bruce

"Mloclam D. Log" wrote:
> All due respect, Bruce, the question's not worth answering.

All due respect, Josh/Malcolm. The question is worth answering. Saying
that it's not worth answering is your own opinion. If you can not answer
the questions asked of you, there is no reason for you to be here at all.
You are just wasting our time and saying nothing.

> The 'fact' that there may be some groups of people who smoke but have less
> occurance of disease means nothing. If you can show me a culture that smoke
and
> has a history of absolutely NO disease, I'd be interested in learning more.

That is an ignorant belief. All cultures have disease, even the primitive
groups eating mostly raw food. We all die of something. You don't die
of old age. You die of organ failure, disease, or injury. Show me a raw
food culture that has no disease or organ failure, and lives for 120 yrs.
Your whole argument is ridiculuous, based on ignorance and deception.
You are now on moderated and your posts will not be allowed if they
do not offer information or respond to questions asked.

> I would, too. And I did at first, actually. The 'problem' with your point is
that I have
> experience the claims to be true. First hand. That's been the only point that
I've tried
> to convey here. This page is a bias slant that tries to discredit truth for
the sake of
> some undefined grudge that is being held.

The problem with your point is that I don't know your experience is
true. You can say what you want. Nobody but you knows whether it
is true or not. There is no bias here. No discrediting of truth. And no
grudges. There is a bias against truth from Aajonus and his followers.
The dupes who believe he tested 1,200 supplements in 2 years don't
use their brains. His books are full of obvious lies and false-to-facts
statements. He clearly has a motive to lie. By claiming that he tried
all these things, he gains credibility in the eyes of the dupes. But it
will never be possible to convince me that he could test 1,200 sups
in 2 years or make any valid conclusions if he did. That statement is
unbelievable on many different levels. And it's not even an isolated
example. He has said hundreds of things like that.

> You've passed that over every time I've mentioned it. You have allowed your
dislike of
> Aajonus and the PD to discredit actually first hand testimonial (not just
mine, either).

I have told you repeatedly that I don't care about testimonials. Anyone
can give testimonials. I have received dozens of testimonials from the
people I have talked to on this list, and others. That doesn't mean any
thing. I want you to explain the mechanism. And you keep saying that
you will only listen to our arguments for cultures that have NO disease.
It's an absurd position, because you can't point out a group eating raw
that has no disease. NOT ONE. You've wasted enough time with these
absurd doubel standards. I have had enough. Provide us with credible
historical accounts of a group eating 100% raw, with no disease. If you
can't provide such an account, your demands for us to do so regarding
smoking are simply unreasonable and hypocritical.

> Where is the educational value in that? Isn't that the point of our
> spending time sharing information here?

We want to find out why and if things work, not just accept someone
else's anecdotal testimony. That's the difference between us. We are
skeptical. You are a blind follower. We ask you to point out a culture
with no disease eating 100% raw, since you regard "no disease" as the
only standard. You ask us to show a culture with "no disease" smoking
tobacco. That's beside the point. Tobacco can't be blamed for every
disease, so why must we show a culture with NO disease? That's just
a silly and weak argument, that discredits you.

> I'm more than happy to not post here. Just stop posting things that
> aren't true and I won't have to post anymore.

You post here because you are allowed to post here. If you do not
provide useful information and responses, there would be no point
in allowing you to continue wasting our time with endless circular
arguments and pathetic unfounded accusations.

> I can just read and learn....

So far, you have shown no indication of doing either.

Bruce

There are many people who smoke and never get cancer. Smoking is a
RISK FACTOR. There is no absolute link between smoking and cancer or
any other disease. People survive gun shots to the head, you can't say
that a gun shot to the head is 100% lethal. Are cigarettes more or less
lethal than a gun shot to the head? Are cuban cigars or natural tobacco
more or less lethal than Marlboros? Measure the risk.

Maybe cancer is caused by stress and people under stress often smoke
or drink or use drugs. You can't ever show causality without rigorously
controlled studies lasting decades. All the information we have about
smoking is anecdotal or epidemiological, based on studying population
level trends. It's impossible to find mechanisms of causality from such
data. I welcome Josh or anyone to show otherwise.

There are many risk factors for cancer and all are poorly understood.
Many articles have been written about the recent study which found
that "macho men heal faster." Clearly, that suggests that thoughts or
attitudes have a large impact on health and wellness. If you think it
will harm you to do something, like smoke cigars, or cook food, you
will probably be right. It's all in the state fo mind.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17646502/
http://content2.apa.org/journals/men/7/3/165
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070316-113245-9407r.htm

Bruce

"Mloclam D. Log" <josh1270@...> wrote:

> Yes, I did say that. But does it say anything about toxins being a
> result of eating cooked food? No, it does not.

I am sorry Josh, but your reasoning is starting to make less sense even
more.

So now you are going to tell us that by eating 100 % raw you cured your
diseases but that toxis are not a result of eating  cooked foods?????

You are contradicting elementary arguments present in AV´s writings. I
really can´t follow your logic. Maybe you should go and tell Primal
dieters your new theory. Or maybe not. You could be considered a
conspirator that may put in danger their unfounded raw dogma.

J.M. Escalante

"esca_lante" wrote:
> So now you are going to tell us that by eating 100 % raw you cured your
> diseases but that toxis are not a result of eating cooked foods?????

He hasn't denied that toxins are a result of eating cooked food. He
just denies saying it. Not once has Josh/Malcolm said that it's false.
He just denies saying it. By not saying it, he doesn't have to defend
his belief. AV has clearly said he believes that cooked food poisons
the body and that raw food helps detox the toxicity resulting from
cooked food. So, Josh, we really don't care if you said it. You have
been defending a man who has said it. And you are not denying you
agree with it. You are wasting time arguing about whether you said
it. Who cares? Do you believe it or do you not?

> You are contradicting elementary arguments present in AV´s writings. I
> really can´t follow your logic. Maybe you should go and tell Primal
> dieters your new theory. Or maybe not. You could be considered a
> conspirator that may put in danger their unfounded raw dogma.

I don't think he's a conspirator against the primal diet. He's more
like those people who say they don't agree with everything that
AV says - only 90 to 95% of it. He has used arguments that sound
exactly like primal diet fanatics. Like, saying we must show him
a culture with "no disease" that smokes tobacco, even though it
can not possibly be responsible for all diseases.

Someone on the primal diet list once said: "Lowest incidence of
heart disease is by no means heart regeneration." In response to
arguments about the French diet - high in saturated fat - giving
the lowest rate of heart disease. Unless they can offer proof of
"heart regeneration" or "no disease", among people eating 100%
raw food, such arguments are simply inane. We are still waiting
for credible evidence and ideas from raw-ists.

Bruce

Let me try to clarify.

I've never implied that toxins come from cooked for ALONE. Obviously there are
other
factors which lead to a toxic body. My posting has been to share my experience
of
RAF's helping my body to get rid of those toxins.

I can't state it more simply than that.

Bruce, I'm not interested in what you feel is IMPLIED in my statement. How you
interpret (sp?) or mis-shape my words and thoughts is not my problem. I only am
only concerned with what I have actually said.

Also, I AM interested in testimonials. I want results AND figures.

Of course I'm interested in a link to a finding on the web by a person who may
or may
not have found any long term results in a lab rat. It's all information to be
taken into
consideration. But I'm more interested in getting first hand results and making
my
own decision..

That seems to be our biggest disagreement.

So, enough, move on to something else. We're treading water in a stagnant pool.

MJG





--- In AV-Skeptics@yahoogroups.com, "esca_lante" <esca_lante@...> wrote:
>
> "Mloclam D. Log" <josh1270@> wrote:
>
> > Yes, I did say that. But does it say anything about toxins being a
> > result of eating cooked food? No, it does not.
>
> I am sorry Josh, but your reasoning is starting to make less sense even
> more.
>
> So now you are going to tell us that by eating 100 % raw you cured your
> diseases but that toxis are not a result of eating  cooked foods?????
>
> You are contradicting elementary arguments present in AV´s writings. I
> really can´t follow your logic. Maybe you should go and tell Primal
> dieters your new theory. Or maybe not. You could be considered a
> conspirator that may put in danger their unfounded raw dogma.
>
> J.M. Escalante
>

> "cash_online5"
> > Bruce

> > Edward Howell noted that Eskimo sled dogs
> > degenerated on a diet of fresh raw meat. They thrived on cooked
> > meat or aged meat.
>
> Where did you read this?

I think it was his first book, Food Enzymes for Health and Longevity.
He was quoting one of the famous arctic explorers, who found their
dogs became weak and haggard on a diet of fresh raw meat. I have
experienced the same problems. My health and fitness performance
declined gradually on the RAF diet. My hair and fingernails were not
growing and were thin. My healing also slowed. Severa people I've
talked with have reported similar problems.

> > Raw = 41.5-61.1% digestible. Cooked = 90.1-91.7% digestible.
> > http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/128/10/1716
>
> I haven't read that entire article. Are they talking about the entire
> egg, or just the white? I cook my whites, and pour the raw yolks over
> them, because i heard the inhibitors are only in the white......

They were testing whole eggs. Digestibility was 47.5-121.0% more
efficient with cooked eggs than raw eggs. I never saw any unique
benefits from raw eggs, despite all the free-rage, cage-free, and
fertile nomenclature. Raw eggs have many enzyme inhibitors and
anti-nutrients that can cause deficiencies of iron, B12, biotin, or
protein. Sally Fallon has said that cooked eggs are fine. Oxidized
cholesterol isn't a problem in normal foods. It is mainly a concern
with evaporated/dried milk and powdered eggs.

http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/hd.html
http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/skinny.html

Bruce

"Mloclam D. Log" wrote:
> I've never implied that toxins come from cooked for ALONE. Obviously there are
other
> factors which lead to a toxic body. My posting has been to share my experience
of
> RAF's helping my body to get rid of those toxins.

Now you are finally being more honest. Obviously pollution and chemicals
are a factor. It would be great to have some proof and a plausible theory
why (or if) "raw fats" assist the body in "removing toxins", and why (or if)
cooked fats don't. Surely it wouldn't be too hard to prove this, since raw
foodists argue the case is basically open and shut. There shouldn't be any
room for debate. Either raw food encourages detox through some unique
process or it doesn't. Maybe it works because of calorie restriction, food
elimination, ketosis, or some other effect. Show me.

> Bruce, I'm not interested in what you feel is IMPLIED in my statement. How you
> interpret (sp?) or mis-shape my words and thoughts is not my problem. I only
am
> only concerned with what I have actually said.

I am only concerned with what you actually believe, whether said or not.
When you defend Aajonus, it suggests you agree with him. Nobody else is
stepping forward to answer the points I have made. You still haven't said
whether it's believable for someone to test 1,200 supplements in 2 years,
then proclaim all supplements are toxic or useless. He has repeatedly said
stupid things like that, which totally defy belief. To defend a man like AV
without disclaimers just makes you look like a dupe.

> Also, I AM interested in testimonials. I want results AND figures.

You can get testimonials for any diet, including low-fat and raw vegan.
What does that prove? Maybe the people giving the tesimonials didn't
follow the diet 100%. Such testimonials prove nothing. I know for sure
that people demanded AV remove their testimonial and he would not
do so. His argument was "you believed the testimonial when you gave
it." He is a man with absolutely no credibility.

> Of course I'm interested in a link to a finding on the web by a person who may
or may
> not have found any long term results in a lab rat. It's all information to be
taken into
> consideration. But I'm more interested in getting first hand results and
making my
> own decision..

Your decisions do not provide any more proof than the decisions of
other people to follow a fruitarian, breatharian, or raw vegan diet.
All the experience in the world doesn't mean your theories are the
truth. Aajonus seems to think that they do, because he wants us to
believe he has tried 1,200 supplements and all sorts of other diets,
before concluding that his is the best. Such claims prove nothing if
you haven't tried all of the available options. We will continue to
debate your theories and extrapolations from personal experience.
You are free to do what you want and believe whatever nonsense
you want, but you're not free to present it as fact.

Bruce


--- In AV-Skeptics@yahoogroups.com, "esca_lante" <esca_lante@...> wrote:
>
> "Mloclam D. Log" <josh1270@> wrote:
>
> > Yes, I did say that. But does it say anything about toxins being a
> > result of eating cooked food? No, it does not.
>
> I am sorry Josh, but your reasoning is starting to make less sense even
> more.
>
> So now you are going to tell us that by eating 100 % raw you cured your
> diseases but that toxis are not a result of eating  cooked foods?????
>
> You are contradicting elementary arguments present in AV´s writings. I
> really can´t follow your logic. Maybe you should go and tell Primal
> dieters your new theory. Or maybe not. You could be considered a
> conspirator that may put in danger their unfounded raw dogma.
>
> J.M. Escalante
>

Bruce wrote:



"Now you are finally being more honest. Obviously pollution and chemicals
are a factor. It would be great to have some proof and a plausible theory
why (or if) "raw fats" assist the body in "removing toxins", and why (or if)
cooked fats don't. Surely it wouldn't be too hard to prove this, since raw
foodists argue the case is basically open and shut. There shouldn't be any
room for debate. Either raw food encourages detox through some unique
process or it doesn't. Maybe it works because of calorie restriction, food
elimination, ketosis, or some other effect. Show me."



I also have not seen a plausible theory put forward that accounts for why
raw fats might bind with toxins better than heated fats but I have seen
evidence in a peer-reviewed medical journal (the paper was probably
published in the 80s and I believe the author is an MD named John Douglas or
Douglass or something like that) that heating even saturated fats to cooking
temps produces a significant amount of trans-fatty acids. I believe it's
generally accepted (and the underlying biochem is understood) that fat
molecules in the trans-  configuration fail to bond well with O2 (compared
to fats in the natural cis- configuration). I think it's an amiable
hypothesis that this effect of cooking alone could have negative health
consequences in the long run (cell membranes composed of trans-fat-based
phospholipids don't "breathe" very well) but I don't know whether it might
also predict the failure of cooked fats to bind well with toxins (or certain
kinds of toxins).  Does anyone believe this might be a useful idea to
explore? Also, has anyone else seen evidence that normal cooking temps
produce substantial quantities of trans- fatty acids (even in saturated
fats)?





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

according to this trans fats are not formed by heating vegetable oils
http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/howtransform.html
see also
http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/fats-oils-faqs.html

--- In AV-Skeptics@yahoogroups.com, "David Ross" <davidross@...> wrote:
>
> Bruce wrote:
>
>
>
> "Now you are finally being more honest. Obviously pollution and chemicals
> are a factor. It would be great to have some proof and a plausible theory
> why (or if) "raw fats" assist the body in "removing toxins", and why (or if)
> cooked fats don't. Surely it wouldn't be too hard to prove this, since raw
> foodists argue the case is basically open and shut. There shouldn't be any
> room for debate. Either raw food encourages detox through some unique
> process or it doesn't. Maybe it works because of calorie restriction, food
> elimination, ketosis, or some other effect. Show me."
>
>
>
> I also have not seen a plausible theory put forward that accounts for why
> raw fats might bind with toxins better than heated fats but I have seen
> evidence in a peer-reviewed medical journal (the paper was probably
> published in the 80s and I believe the author is an MD named John Douglas or
> Douglass or something like that) that heating even saturated fats to cooking
> temps produces a significant amount of trans-fatty acids. I believe it's
> generally accepted (and the underlying biochem is understood) that fat
> molecules in the trans-  configuration fail to bond well with O2 (compared
> to fats in the natural cis- configuration). I think it's an amiable
> hypothesis that this effect of cooking alone could have negative health
> consequences in the long run (cell membranes composed of trans-fat-based
> phospholipids don't "breathe" very well) but I don't know whether it might
> also predict the failure of cooked fats to bind well with toxins (or certain
> kinds of toxins).  Does anyone believe this might be a useful idea to
> explore? Also, has anyone else seen evidence that normal cooking temps
> produce substantial quantities of trans- fatty acids (even in saturated
> fats)?
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

from mercola, sorry, don't know how to make it a link...


http://vitalvotes.com/blogs/public_blog/If-You-Aren-t-Using-This-Type-
of-Exercise-You-Are-Missing-Out-Big-Time-13930.aspx

"David Ross" wrote:

> I also have not seen a plausible theory put forward that accounts
> for why raw fats might bind with toxins better than heated fats

Forget about raw vs. cooked. To begin with, have you ever seen
evidence supporting the idea that dietary fat can in fact bind toxins
so that they can be excreted from the body? I don´t. I welcome anyone
to show us.

> but I have seen evidence in a peer-reviewed medical journal (the
> paper was probably published in the 80s and I believe the author is
> an MD named John Douglas or Douglass or something like that) that
> heating even saturated fats to cooking temps produces a significant
> amount of trans-fatty acids.

I would say ¨biologically insignificant¨ rather than ¨significant¨,
based on human tightly-controlled clinical trials showing how
hydrogenated oils affect health when compared to saturated fats -
which are of course consumed cooked and/or pasteurized. See Colpo´s
book for references.

www.theomnivore.com

J. M. Escalante